Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-05-12
THE LIBEL SUIT.
Mr.. Rawlins Makes His Opening
Statement tO she Hurry.

In the libel suit of E. a. Austin vs.. the
Tribune publishing Company, jury was
at last obtained yesterday afternoon and
was in its place this morning ready to
hear the case.
j. L. Rawlins, Esq, of Sheeks & Raw
Inns, attorneys for Austin, began by
making an opening statement; He first
referred to the articles upon which the
suit was based and then took them up
and disposed Of them in proper order.
One of the principal charges was that
Austin, as agent for one Mrs. Williams,
had swindled that lady and that he had
skipped out to Europe. The paper asks,
"Will the rascal be brought back?"
MIR. Rawlins gave detailed ac-
count of the dealings Of Mr.. Aus
tin with this woman, and dwelling
at length upon her investing in Nam
moth mine stock on Austin's advice and
stating that Austin had at the same time
invested in the stock personally. He
said that it was true Mr.. Austin had
given Mrs. Williams a glowing account
of the property, but that this was no
more than the circumstances war
ranted He said that the stock was
quoted in the defendants paper at
high figure at the time Mrs Williams in
vested. In relation to another part OF
Austin's stewardship, Mr.. Rawlins said
that on the 22nd of August, 1888, Mrs.
! Williams wrote a letter from Elkhorn,
! Colorado, asking Mr.. Austin to send her
! So, 900 by the LIST of September, as she
would on that date leave for parts I'M
known. At the time the letter arrived
here, Mr.. Austin was at the lake and
did not return until the 2nd Of Septem-
her, too late 10 comply with the request.
The lady, however, had a home adj
dress and thinking that a letter
would reach her there, Al stin sent
Il draft for $1,000 to that place.
! This money was afterward returned
from the dead letter office. Later on
Austin learned that the lady was still in
Elkhorn, and he addressed h letter to
! her at that place, explaining why he lad
not sent the letter.
Later ON, when Mr.. Austin was about
to leave for London for the purpose OF
placing the Mammoth stock on the Lon
don market, he left his London address
with Marshal & Royle, Barking d Van
made no secret of his going but, on the
known. Before leaving he deposited
Mrs. Williams money in the Deseret
National Bank in the name of E. A.
Austin, trustee, showing that he had no
idea of keeping it in his own name. As
an evidence OF his intention to return,
he left his home here, furnished
throughout, and furthermore, bought a
return ticket. When he heard of the
damaging article that had been printed
he left his business unfinished and re-
turned to this city to refute the state
meDts. Going to the editor of the Tri-
bune, he offered to explain the matter,
but was refused a hearing. Sew:
eral communications were sent
to the paper by different parties
denying the allegations, but they were
refused publication. In regard to the
statement to the effect that Austin has
transferred this property to his wife, Mr..
Rawlins said that this was of whole cloth,
as would be proven, and the statement to
the effect that he had used Mr.. Tillett as
tool was of a similar character.
Referring to Mr.. Austin's connection
with the London Bank of Utah, Mr..
Rawlins called attention to the intima-
ton that Mr.. Austin was mismanaging
the business and should be looked after
by the owners, saying Mr.. Kirby, repre-
sentative of the stockholders. did look into
the affairs of the bank and found them all
right. He said that Mr.. Kirby wrote to
the Tribune refutation of these charges
and that that paper refused to publish
the letter.
On the whole, Mr.. Rawlin's statement
was explanative and was listened to with
wrapt attention by the Jury.
The defense decided not 10 make a
statement. and just before the noee15 re-
cess the taking of evidence was begun.